SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
R v Clark [2009] QCA 361
PARTIES:
R
v
CLARK, Tania Winifred Paula
(appellant/applicant)FILE NO/S:
CA No 162 of 2009
SC No 482 of 2008DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
27 November 2009
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
20 November 2009
JUDGES:
Keane and Holmes JJA and Atkinson J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders madeORDERS:
1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted
2. Appeal allowed to the extent of setting aside the sentence of 10 years imprisonment and substituting in its place a sentence of nine years imprisonment, and setting aside the serious violent offence declaration
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where applicant convicted on own plea of two counts of manslaughter – where applicant fatally struck victims with vehicle on footpath – where applicant suffered Bipolar Affective Disorder – where applicant voluntarily intoxicated herself with various prescription drugs in excess of their therapeutic dosage – where applicant entered plea of guilty on day of trial – where applicant claimed trial judge erred by failing to find causal link between Bipolar Affective Disorder and the applicant's conduct – where applicant claimed trial judge erred by failing to recognise her plea of guilty – whether sentence manifestly excessive
R v Dwyer [2008] QCA 117, cited
R v Kelly [1999] QCA 296, considered
R v Rosenberger; ex parte Attorney-General [1995] 1 Qd R 677; [1994] QCA 488, cited
R v Tsiaras [1996] 1 VR 398, cited
R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269; [2007] VSCA 102, citedCOUNSEL:
C W Heaton for the applicant
M J Copley SC for the respondentSOLICITORS:
Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
KEANE JA:
On 21 October 2008 the applicant was convicted on her own plea of two counts of manslaughter. The applicant was sentenced on 12 June 2009. On each count she was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment, the sentences to be served concurrently. A serious violent offence declaration was made. A period of
491 days pre-sentence custody was declared as time served under the sentence. The applicant was disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for life.
The applicant filed an appeal in respect of conviction and sought leave to appeal against her sentence. Shortly before the hearing of this matter, the applicant filed a notice of abandonment of her appeal against conviction.
The sentence is said to be "manifestly excessive in all the circumstances". I will summarise the facts relating to the offence and the sentence before discussing the applicant's contentions.
The circumstances of the offence
The applicant pleaded guilty to having unlawfully killed two young boys, Jye Nicholas Strong (who was 15 years old) and Nathan Colin Sprecak (who was
Continue reading R v Clark
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Clark [2009] QCA 361
- Case
- [2009] QCA 361
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge erred in failing to find a causal link between the applicant's Bipolar Affective Disorder and their conduct, and whether the trial judge erred in not recognising the applicant's plea of guilty. The court also considered whether the sentence of 10 years imprisonment was manifestly excessive or inadequate.
The court found that the trial judge had not erred in failing to find a causal link between the applicant's Bipolar Affective Disorder and their conduct, as the applicant had voluntarily intoxicated themselves with prescription drugs. The court also found that the trial judge had recognised the applicant's plea of guilty. However, the court found that the sentence of 10 years imprisonment was manifestly excessive, as it had not taken into account the applicant's plea of guilty and the circumstances surrounding the incident. The court allowed the appeal to the extent of setting aside the sentence of 10 years imprisonment and substituting in its place a sentence of nine years imprisonment, and setting aside the serious violent offence declaration.
The court granted the applicant leave to appeal against their sentence and allowed the appeal to the extent of setting aside the sentence of 10 years imprisonment and substituting in its place a sentence of nine years imprisonment, and setting aside the serious violent offence declaration.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted
2. Appeal allowed to the extent of setting aside the sentence of 10 years imprisonment and substituting in its place a sentence of nine years imprisonment, and setting aside the serious violent offence declaration
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.